04/19/2001 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2001
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Jeannette James
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act adopting the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact; making criminal justice information available to
interested persons and criminal history record information
available to the public; making certain conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SSHB 120 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
"An Act requiring proof of motor vehicle insurance in order to
register a motor vehicle; and relating to motor vehicle
liability insurance for taxicabs."
- MOVED CSHB 67(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 196
"An Act establishing a right of action for a legal separation;
and amending Rule 42(a), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
- MOVED CSHB 196(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to abuse of inhalants."
- MOVED CSHB 114(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE:DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/09/01 0281 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/09/01 0281 (H) STA, JUD
03/14/01 0585 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/14/01 0585 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/01 0585 (H) JUD
04/04/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/04/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/01 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/18/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/19/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION/INSURANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0111 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0111 (H) L&C, JUD
03/26/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/26/01 (H) Bill Postponed
03/28/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/28/01 (H) Moved CSHB 67(L&C) Out of
Committee
03/28/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/01 0783 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 5DP 2NR
03/30/01 0784 (H) DP: KOTT, CRAWFORD, HAYES,
MEYER,
03/30/01 0784 (H) ROKEBERG; NR: HALCRO,
MURKOWSKI
03/30/01 0784 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.L&C)
04/09/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/09/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
04/10/01 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/10/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/11/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/11/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/18/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 196
SHORT TITLE:RIGHT OF ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0649 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0649 (H) JUD
04/06/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/09/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/09/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/18/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/19/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 114
SHORT TITLE:INHALANT ABUSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KAPSNER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/07/01 0263 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/01 0263 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/21/01 0392 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
02/27/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/28/01 0473 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI
03/01/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/07/01 0501 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FATE, DYSON
03/09/01 0529 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CISSNA, JOULE,
MEYER
03/15/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/15/01 (H) Moved CSHB 114(HES) Out of
Committee
03/15/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/16/01 0622 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 5DP
03/16/01 0622 (H) DP: COGHILL, WILSON, CISSNA,
JOULE,
03/16/01 0622 (H) DYSON
03/16/01 0622 (H) FN1: INDETERMINATE(HSS)
03/16/01 0622 (H) FN2: (HSS)
03/16/01 0636 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL
04/18/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/19/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KENNETH E. BISCHOFF, Director
Central Office
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the DPS's position of strong
support for SSHB 120 and answered questions.
DIANE SCHENKER, Criminal Justice Planner
Anchorage Office
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to definition
language in SSHB 120.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Rokeberg, assisted with the presentation of HB 67 and answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 196.
KARA MORIARTY, Staff
to Senator Gary Wilken
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 196,
and answered questions.
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 114.
JIM HENKELMAN, Statewide Outreach Coordinator
Inhalant Intervention Project
Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC)
2957 Yale Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 114,
testified in support, and answered questions.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative and Administrative Liaison
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
PO Box 110635
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0635
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 114, answered
questions.
ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 114, indicated that
the DPS did not foresee any problems with implementing Section 4
of Version J.
DON DAPCEVICH
Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (DADA)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
PO Box 110607
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0607
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 114, answered
questions related to treatment for adult inhalant abusers.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-66, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Ogan (via teleconference), Coghill, and Meyer were
present at the call to order. Representatives James, Berkowitz,
and Kookesh arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 120 - DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
Number 0109
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act adopting
the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact; making
criminal justice information available to interested persons and
criminal history record information available to the public;
making certain conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0123
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor, explained that
SSHB 120 authorizes Alaska to join the National Crime Prevention
and Privacy Compact (NCPPC), which is a compact that allows
participating states and the federal government to exchange
information regarding criminal history records for non-criminal
purposes. He added that the exchange of this information will
occur through the Interstate Identification Index (III) System.
He then mentioned that he has concerns regarding privacy issues,
and would therefore be endeavoring to make sure that personal
information cannot be misused. He noted that these records
cannot be acquired without the subject's fingerprints, which
must be given voluntarily unless he/she is incarcerated at the
time of the request. The NCPPC will allow information to be
shared with requestors that are not typically considered
"criminal groups," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) does not always have all of a subject's
criminal history records that would be available at the state
level; hence, by acquiring the information directly from a
participating state, the requestor has a better chance of
obtaining a subject's entire criminal history record, rather
than simply relying on what is available from the FBI's
databank. He noted that [eight] states have already adopted the
NCPPC, and that many more are [considering legislation similar
to SSHB 120]. He mentioned that Alaska has a lot of people
moving in and out of state, and he reminded the committee that
the state requires that criminal background checks be performed
on people who work with vulnerable adults and children.
Currently, this sort of information is only available from the
FBI, and if it did not have all the pertinent information about
a person who moved to Alaska from a participating state, any
criminal background check done on that person would be
incomplete. With the adoption of the NCPPC, the information
could be requested directly from that other state; not only
would time be saved, but the other state's information might be
more detailed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that by adopting the NCPPC, Alaska
would be submitting to the provisions established by the NCPPC;
it is his understanding, however, that none of these provisions
would change or "trump" Alaska's laws but would, instead, merely
work within the framework of current statute. He explained that
adoption of SSHB 120 would amend Alaska's "criminal
dissemination laws," and would allow "non-public safety
entities" to receive criminal history information.
Number 0535
KENNETH E. BISCHOFF, Director, Central Office, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
noted that the DPS strongly supports SSHB 120. He said that the
House had passed similar legislation last year but it did not
make it completely through the Senate. He explained that what
SSHB 120 does for civil purposes is what law enforcement has had
available to it for investigative and criminal purposes for
approximately 35 years. Under a national compact, SSHB 120
would allow entities, which are expressly authorized or required
by the legislature, to make use of the compact, through the DPS,
to produce a substantially better, more complete, accurate, and
timely criminal history report. He noted that the DPS currently
does over 20,000 fingerprint-based criminal history checks
annually for such items and entities as foster parent licenses,
teacher certifications, school bus driver licenses, child care
facilities, security guards, assisted living homes, nursing
homes, insurance agencies, collections agencies, and the Alaska
Bar Association.
MR. BISCHOFF explained that the DPS, by statute, is the central
repository for criminal history record information from which
these entities receive this information. He said the process
works thus: fingerprints are presented to the DPS with a fee,
and then [the DPS] processes a "state-level check" and a
"national check." He said that SSHB 120 recognizes a national
initiative to automate criminal history checks and make them
more streamlined and more complete; nationally, he added, there
are approximately 60 million criminal records, but about 40
percent of those records exist only at the state level (the FBI
has access to the remaining 60 percent). In order to get at all
of the information, he explained, "we" need to be able to
participate as an NCPPC member, so that as more and more states
become members of the NCPPC, "we" will have access to all
participating states' information. He noted that SSHB 120 does
nothing to change any of the authorizations or requirements the
legislature has passed. What SSHB 120 essentially does, he
said, is allow the DPS to use the "national information
highway," and will make [the DPS's] work more efficient and more
complete in terms of serving the regulatory agencies and others
that the legislature has authorized to use criminal history
information.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether SSHB 120 in any way grants
authority to the NCPPC to enact bylaws that would have the force
of law in participating states.
MR. BISCHOFF said no.
Number 0796
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN then asked whether financial institutions
and other private institutions that normally do not get this
kind of information would have the ability to do so under SSHB
120. He expressed concern that financial institutions would be
allowed to request criminal history checks simply to process
loans.
MR. BISCHOFF responded that currently, financial institutions
are not authorized to conduct criminal history checks on loan
applicants; he reiterated that SSHB 120 does not provide for any
additional authorizations.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that a previous version of HB 120
did contain a provision relating to financial institutions,
which was removed from SSHB 120.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that in the [Matanuska-Susitna
area] two different teachers have had sexual relations with
students. He asked whether current authorizations could be
expanded to include school districts if they weren't already
capable of requesting criminal background checks from the DPS.
MR. BISCHOFF replied that school districts are already "major
clients"; they request criminal background checks, some more
often than others. He noted that the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED) is required by statute and
regulation to perform a fingerprint-based criminal history check
upon a person when he/she is first certified as a teacher. He
added that once a teacher is employed by a school district,
policies regarding criminal history checks differ among school
districts.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that restrictions pertaining to the title
of SSHB 120 would not allow for either expansions or deletions
to the list of entities that have authorization to request
criminal history checks; SSHB 120 merely allows for the adoption
of the NCPPC.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for further explanation regarding
language on page 2, lines 19-27, which alters AS 12.62.160(b)(8)
and (9), specifically that which relates to, "is nonconviction
information or correctional treatment information".
Number 1109
DIANE SCHENKER, Criminal Justice Planner, Anchorage Office,
Division of Administrative Services, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), testified via teleconference. She explained that this
change in language will prevent nonconviction information - when
a person is arrested but not convicted - and correctional
treatment information - which, aside from logistical facility
information, may include medical and/or psychiatric treatment -
from being included in the criminal history report that is
released to any person. She added, however, that there are
clauses in the current law that allow specialized authority for
different kinds of reports.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked why language is being removed regarding
compromising the privacy of a minor or vulnerable adult.
MS SCHENKER offered that because the statute explicitly
restricts the release of any information other than what is
specifically listed, there is no likelihood that any information
regarding victims would be released; thus the language regarding
minors and vulnerable adults is superfluous.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the information [being
released] would include a person's social security number,
address, and/or date of birth (DOB).
MS. SCHENKER replied that this information could be included in
a standard criminal history report [because] there is a category
called identification information, and the DOB is used along
with the name to identify a person. She added that aliases as
well [could be released].
MR. BISCHOFF, in response to questions, said that the NCPPC is a
national compact, and it took three states' ratifying the
compact to make it effective.
MS. SCHENKER added that as of this year, nine states have
adopted the NCPPC.
MR. BISCHOFF, in response to questions regarding the current
procedure for sharing information, explained that [the DPS]
processes any requests for information by doing a state-level
check and then searching the FBI's files, which have a high
percentage of the nation's criminal records but not all of them.
He added that the search of the FBI's files is done via a
dedicated law enforcement network, which is sponsored by the
FBI.
Number 1386
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for further explanation regarding
language on page 2, line 29, which, to his understanding, is
"lowering the bar" for information relating to a serious
offense.
MS. SCHENKER explained that under the current law, the criminal
history reports that can be given to a person in order to screen
people who are going to be taking care of children or vulnerable
adults are limited to serious offenses, which are defined in
statute. In contrast, SSHB 120 says that the report will be
able to include all convictions. She said that this change is
prompted by the fact that in the process of trying to define
which statutory violations are considered serious, a critical
violation may be missed. She pointed out that another advantage
to this change is that the list defining which information could
be released would not have to be changed every time the criminal
statutes are amended. Also, this change ensures that if the
offense is relevant to the situation surrounding the request for
the information, then the person reviewing the report can make
that determination. She confirmed, in response to questions,
that SSHB 120 authorizes [the DPS] to include records containing
dispositions of "not guilty by reason of insanity."
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether "interested person" is defined in
statute.
MR. BISCHOFF said yes.
MS. SCHENKER added that the definition is located elsewhere in
AS 12.62, and means someone who is screening an applicant for a
paid or unpaid position where the applicant would have
supervisory or disciplinary power over a minor or a dependant
adult; she noted that a dependant adult is also defined in
statute. She confirmed that not just anybody can claim to be an
"interested party" for the purpose of obtaining the criminal
history records of another person.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether Section 2, the provision that
stipulates the details of the NCPPC, can be altered.
MR. BISCHOFF replied that Section 2 has to remain intact and
cannot be altered in any way except via congressional action.
Number 1682
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the references to attorney
general on page 9, lines 13 and 20, relate to a federal-level
attorney general, who will not have the ability to overturn or
rewrite Alaska statute.
MR. BISCHOFF added that nothing in Section 2 will impact
anything the legislature does; the language referred to by
Representative Coghill merely indicates that the U.S. Attorney
General has a standard with which statutory language must
comport before allowing access to the national III system.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that this language
constitutes a classic supremacy clause, which mandates that if
the federal government has passed a particular law, states must
abide by it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that there is a provision on page
15, line 16, that details the right of appeal.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the sectional analysis makes reference
to the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act in connection with
the release of conviction information after unconditional
discharge. He asked what an unconditional discharge is, what
the timeframe is, and how that relates to the compact itself.
MR. BISCHOFF explained that previously, the thought was that at
some point, the criminal justice system should know when someone
has satisfied his/her sentence all the way through probation
release, and that the person would then have no other duty to
the criminal justice system. However, it is simply not possible
to calculate anyone's unconditional discharge date; therefore,
when an interested person requests information, [the DPS] will
"give them everything." For this reason, [the language on page
2, lines 19-27] removes any mention of restricting the release
of information tied to an unconditional discharge date. He also
explained that the sex offender registry, by itself, is not
considered part of the criminal history record database from
which [the DPS] releases information.
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report SSHB 120 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SSHB 120 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:41 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.
HB 67 - MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION/INSURANCE
Number 2046
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 67, "An Act requiring proof of motor vehicle
insurance in order to register a motor vehicle; and relating to
motor vehicle liability insurance for taxicabs." [Before the
committee was CSHB 67(L&C) and proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 67, version 22-LS0299\J, Ford, 4/4/01, which was
pending adoption as a work draft at the adjournment of the
meeting on 4/18/01.]
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the committee still had to adopt
Version J as a work draft.
Number 2063
JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislature, stated her recollection that the committee
had adopted Version J at the previous meeting. There being no
objection to this statement, Version J was before the committee.
MS. SEITZ went on to explain, with regard to the question about
taxicab insurance availability, that according to local Juneau
insurance providers, the rates mandated in Version J are
manageable and the coverage is available. She added that
according to the Division of Insurance, there are over 19,000
"direct premiums written" for commercial auto "no-fault and
liability," which is the classification that most taxicabs would
fall under. She also explained that the new rates listed in
Version J address the concerns of a Fairbanks taxicab operator
who wrote a letter of complaint regarding the higher rates
listed in a previous version of HB 67.
MS. SEITZ noted that included in the members' packets is a chart
detailing the specific local ordinance requirements for taxicab
insurance. She added that she had received word from Dillingham
that its local government had tried to create an ordinance
regarding taxicabs but had not succeeded. She then concurred
that there is no state requirement that taxicabs have insurance
coverage other than personal liability insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "How much will this cost? In
other words, how much will the insurance companies benefit from
imposing these requirements statewide?"
MS SEITZ said she did not know.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, speaking as the sponsor, remarked that "it
should be zero." He then asked Ms. Seitz whether Version J
would "raise any of the existing limits anywhere."
MS. SEITZ said not in the local areas, except in Bethel where
they are hearing a new ordinance that would raise their limits
anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that according to the chart,
Barrow only had a "$100,000 for people who die, and $300,000 for
injuries."
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that these amounts are consistent with
Version J.
Number 2240
MS. SEITZ clarified that in Version J, the limits for the
coverage are set at $100,000 for the bodily injury or death of
one person in one accident (in CSHB 67(L&C) it was set at
$300,000); at $300,000 for the bodily injury or death of two or
more persons in one accident (in CSHB 67(L&C) it was set at
$500,000); and at $50,000 for injury to or destruction of
property (in CSHB 67(L&C) it was set at $100,000).
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there are any
communities, via local ordinance, that are trying to impose
limits different from those proposed on a statewide basis in
Version J.
CHAIR ROKEBERG offered that there are only local ordinances that
set the limits higher; none are trying to set the limits lower.
MS. SEITZ clarified that some communities such as Kotzebue [and
Fairbanks and Bethel] have set the limit for injury to or
destruction of property at $25,000.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the Municipality of Anchorage's
ordinances "don't follow the state format" with regard to
limits.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his concern that if most of the
communities are already doing this, then, in essence, [the bill]
is supplanting local control for state control, and is adding
another layer of state bureaucracy.
CHAIR ROKEBERG replied no, Version J is not creating another
bureaucracy.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in response, pointed out that somebody
at the state level has to make sure that "these folks" are
complying.
MS. SEITZ explained that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
has submitted a zero fiscal note based on the assumption that it
would be just like a person's automobile insurance. "We have a
state law that requires us to carry automobile insurance but
there's no real check to it, except when you sign on your
registration - you sign that you're carrying your automobile
insurance," she added. She also pointed out a person who has an
accident has to show proof of insurance when filling out the
accident report.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what will happen if there is a
failure to comply with Version J. He opined that it will
require some form of state enforcement as opposed to local
enforcement, and that there is going to be a cost to the state.
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he does not believe Version J
warrants any kind of a fiscal note or "that type" of
enforcement. He also noted that his concern is that there would
be [taxicab] firms that don't have adequate insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether there are any "taxicabs out
there that just call themselves a taxicab and they're not
licensed in any particular community."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded by saying, "Gypsy cabs."
CHAIR ROKEBERG added that he assumes that until HB 67 becomes
law, these types of taxicabs don't have any rules; they are
operating "against municipal ordinances." He also added that he
thinks HB 67 is merely setting a floor on the insurance level,
not supplanting local control.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that the taxicab industry is heavily
regulated in Anchorage through the "transportation director,"
and all taxicabs must get permits; hence there are no gypsy cabs
in Anchorage. He then asked for an explanation of the changes
between CSHB 67(L&C) and Version J.
TAPE 01-66, SIDE B
Number 2481
MS. SEITZ explained that the only difference is that Version J
contains lower limits for coverage.
Number 2479
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 67, version 22-
LS0299\J, Ford, 4/4/01, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 67(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 196 - RIGHT OF ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
[Discussion of HB 196 also pertains to SB 126, the companion
bill.]
Number 2456
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 196, "An Act establishing a right of action
for a legal separation; and amending Rule 42(a), Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure."
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
remarked that the proposed committee substitute for HB 196 is a
companion bill to SB 126.
Number 2389
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 196, version 22-LS0718\C,
Lauterbach, 4/4/01, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version C was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that about 17 other states have
statutory provisions for legal separation, which is an
intermediate step for couples that are having difficulties in
their marriage but either don't want to get a divorce or "don't
believe in divorce." Legal separation allows couples to
separate their financial affairs and take care of child custody
issues and property settlements, while working on reconciliation
issues or other personal issues individually. He opined that
everyone knows someone who "has been in a messy situation, and
... one partner or the other is acting in quite an irresponsible
way and getting the relatively innocent party in lots of
financial problems - running up debts, squandering the family
estate and resources, and/or incurring some significant
liabilities." Version C allows people to separate their affairs
before a judge, and gives at least a degree of protection to
both parties while "they do whatever else they're going to do
with the relationship."
Number 2309
KARA MORIARTY, Staff to Senator Gary Wilken, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the concept of a legal separation
came about because Senator Wilken [the sponsor of SB 126] had a
constituent who was faced with an uncomfortable marriage
situation and who wanted to secure the family's assets and child
custody provisions without going through a divorce. She added
that Senator Wilken envisions that this legislation will provide
a "time-out period or a cooling-off period" during which couples
can take care of their finances, their child custody issues, and
all of the other issues that are dealt with in a divorce. She
noted that Senator Wilken has been working to get the legal
separation process to statutorily mirror the divorce process,
while still allowing the couple to retain the legal status of
"married," which may be desired by the parties for financial,
social, or religious reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON recounted that he'd watched his parents go
through a "huge mess" that this legislation would have helped.
He also mentioned that his wife is a marriage-and-family
counselor who has mentioned to him that because many religious
traditions discourage divorce, it would be good if there were a
legal way for couples to separate their affairs.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that according to her experience,
joined finances are sometimes what keeps people together if a
legal separation is not available. Many times, when people
liquidate, they have nothing left, but if the assets can be kept
whole, there is a real financial advantage, even if the couple
no longer lives together.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that some Alaskan courts have been
"doing this;" the judges have kind of worked "through it." He
added that Version C simply puts the procedure in statute and
clarifies some associated issues.
MS. MORIARTY explained that on December 1, 2000, the Alaska
Supreme Court issued an opinion on legal separation in the case
of Glasen v. Glasen. She said that this case involved a couple
who had gotten a legal separation in 1991, had reconciled, and
then had gotten a divorce in 1997. The husband took issue with
the fact that the provisions of the legal separation were
different from the provisions of the divorce; he appealed the
decision all the way to the supreme court, which determined that
although legal separations are not defined in statute, there is
reference to legal separation in current divorce statutes. Thus
the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that courts may grant legal
separations, but it also ruled that future courts did not have
to abide by the provisions of legal separations or recognize the
existence of legal separations. She opined that this ruling
justifies the creation of legislation defining legal separation
in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether Version C was modeled on
another state's statute.
MS. MORIARTY replied that the bill drafter, as much as possible,
simply mirrored Alaska's divorce statute, and had incorporated
some language similar to statutes from a couple of other states.
Number 2050
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that family law issues usually
[are distilled] down to property rights. He said he was trying
to imagine a circumstance in which someone gets, for example, a
legal separation and is accruing ongoing benefits. Normally,
those ongoing benefits would be shared as part of a property
settlement. The individual also could take up with somebody
else at the same time. How, he asked, does the legal separation
factor all that in?
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, in response, said he assumes provision can
be made for that in the case put before the judge by saying, "If
there's alienation of affection because of X, Y, and Z, then
this hammer falls." He agreed that most of this has to do with
property, and said it particularly has to do with incurring
debts. He added that everyone is familiar with the notices in
the paper that say, for example, "I'm not going to be
responsible for any debts except my own." Without the option of
legal separation, in a common-property-law state such as Alaska,
"you're on the hook," and most people know, he added, of
somebody that's married to a "jerk".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is thinking in terms of
pensions, for example; during the course of a separation - and
forgetting about a third party - would the [recipient] continue
to accrue pension benefits, he asked, or would that be something
"hammered out" at the separation hearing?
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON opined that such details would be addressed
in the separation agreement, for example, if they held common
stock.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised, then, "It's like a divorce in
everything but name only."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that many benefit packages are
dependent on marital status, such as health insurance. He then
asked how property divisions would be handled in situations of
legal separation with a subsequent divorce.
Number 1855
MS. MORIARTY referred to page 2, lines 14-19, and explained that
because the divisions of property and debt are usually the most
volatile issues, this language stipulates that the court has to
decide if the division of property and debt is an interim or
final order. For example, if the court decides that the
division is an interim order, the court can also stipulate that
five years later it will reexamine the situation again. She
remarked that this language provides flexibility to the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, in response to questions, noted that an
interim order is interim until it's changed; somebody (the
court) has to referee the situation. [A legal separation] is
supposed to be fair; both sides have access to counsel, and the
judge gets to hear both sides of the case. With regard to the
issues of cost to the state and ongoing legal arguments
surrounding the division, he said that unless the case goes on
to divorce, "it's only going to happen once," and that it will
probable take less time than a divorce because it's generally a
mutual agreement.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that Representative Dyson's testimony that
it's only going to happen once contradicts Ms. Moriarty's
testimony that the court has the flexibility to reexamine the
situation a few years later. He said that while he appreciated
the need for a distinction between an interim order and a final
order, if the division of property and debts in a legal
separation is an interim order, how many times would parties get
to keep coming back to court?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, on the issue of whether there is a benefit
to getting a legal separation, said that she thinks there is
one, particularly if, for example, people have bought some
property and don't have much equity in it, but have the use of
it as long as the payments are made; if it were to be
liquidated, there would be nothing, but if they can keep it for
a while, in time there would be something to divide. She
acknowledged that in this example, it is possible that the
couple could keep the property even after a divorce, but not
very easily. Generally the property has to go to one party or
the other, and then there is nothing left for the other party.
She noted that the same resolution could occur when a couple
owns a business together; in a legal separation, if one party
can't buy the other one out due to a lack of funds, the business
can remain jointly owned. Then, even if only one person stays
to operate it, both parties retain an interest in the business.
By contrast, in a divorce only one party can keep an interest.
Number 1670
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON recounted that he has seen situations in
which one spouse has problems with drugs and/or alcohol, and the
other spouse does not want a divorce but does want to secure the
family's assets while still maintaining the hope that the spouse
with the behavior problem will straighten out.
CHAIR ROKEBERG brought up the issue of "forum shopping" -
whereby if a party is unhappy with a final decree of separation,
he/she attempts to re-litigate property issues in another state.
He asked whether Representative Dyson thinks this needs to be
addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that [Legislative Legal Services]
informed him that this issue is "covered."
MS. MORIARTY, in response to the question of whether someone who
is legally separated can remarry, explained that the Division of
Vital Statistics has confirmed that a person who is legally
separated is not allowed to remarry until he/she goes back to
the court and finalizes divorce proceedings. She noted that
this restriction has prompted the inclusion of Section 5, which
mandates that the court shall keep track of how many legal
separations are done; after three years, the state registrar may
make recommendations regarding the organization of these
statistics. She then went on to explain that the Division of
Vital Statistics has looked at other states for comparison
purposes and relayed that New Hampshire has approximately 6,000
divorces a year (Alaska has 3,500-4,000 divorces) and had 12
legal separations last year - less than 1 percent of what may
have been a divorce was instead a legal separation. Hence, she
opined, statutory legal separation will probably only benefit a
small percentage of Alaskans. Therefore, the costs to the
courts should be minimal; she added that the Alaska Court System
did not raise cost as a concern.
Number 1461
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that according to her understanding of
legal separation, it would be an option for two people who are
fairly compatible but do not want to live together or get
remarried. She offered that if the situation later came to a
divorce, it would not be as expensive, since by that time the
controversial issues of property rights would have already been
addressed.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:18 p.m. to 2:19 p.m.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, after reviewing the Alaska Supreme Court opinion
regarding the Glasen v. Glasen case, remarked, "The courts are
now making law again, here - another example of it."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that he agreed, and that he actively
supports members of the committee who take exception to the
court's doing that.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, returning to the issue of legal separation,
asked whether, at one time, it was more commonly available.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he does not believe it has ever been
enforced in Alaska; he added that it is his understanding that
"more states are moving this direction."
MS. MORIARTY noted that she did not have any nationwide
historical data regarding the availability of legal separation
to offer the committee. She added that according to
[Legislative Legal Services] people have tried to institute
legal separation in the past, but there just wasn't enough
momentum to "put it on the books."
Number 1197
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read:
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Number 1190
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. MORIARTY explained that there was concern that the current
language in Version C would prohibit the courts from issuing a
divorce instead of a legal separation; by changing "shall" to
"may" the courts retain flexibility.
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that parties have to be in agreement if
they are going to enter into a legal separation agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that it may not always be the case
that the parties agree to a legal separation; one spouse may go
into court seeking a legal separation, and the other spouse
would then have to make the case [against going] forward with
the separation. He opined that the court could order a legal
separation.
CHAIR ROKEBERG sought confirmation that a legal separation could
only be entered into on a voluntary basis.
MS. MORIARTY, concurring with Representative Dyson, pointed out
that Section 1 of Version C says that a husband or a wife may
separately or jointly file a complaint for a legal separation.
She agreed it could be, just as Representative Dyson suggested,
a court-ordered legal separation.
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised, then, that he could file for legal
separation instead of divorce simply so that he could maintain
access to health benefits from his wife's health insurance plan,
regardless of whether his wife agreed.
MS MORIARTY noted that it would then be up to his wife to argue
before the courts against the legal separation [or file for
divorce].
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that legal separation could be a
powerful tool if a spouse wished to use it to manage joint
assets to his/her own benefit. He mentioned that he did have
some concerns on this point but did not wish to delay passage of
the legislation.
Number 1018
CHAIR ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Amendment 1, and asked
whether there were any further objections. There being none,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that anybody who is going to file
for a legal separation still has the intention of protecting the
relationship, and is merely seeking protection of the assets,
particularly when there are children involved; legal separation
could "buy time" to remedy family issues.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there is "a quick way to pull the
plug on this thing if there's a reconciliation."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON posited that the petitioner could get a
court date to ask the judge to vacate the agreement.
MS. MORIARTY concurred that the petitioner would have to go back
to court to do that; there are not, however, any specific
provisions for vacating the legal-separation agreement in the
legislation. She added that the drafter had assured her that
this issue did not need to be specified in legislation; the
petitioners simply go back to court for a new decision. On the
issue of why the Alaska Court System submitted a zero fiscal
note, she relayed that Mr. Wooliver said that simply by creating
a three-digit code, it will be easy, with the current database,
to track the legal separations for reporting purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that there probably wouldn't be
that many legal separations filed.
Number 0776
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report HB 196, version 22-
LS0718\C, Lauterbach, 4/4/01, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 196(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 114 - INHALANT ABUSE
Number 0752
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 114, "An Act relating to abuse of inhalants."
[Before the committee was CSHB 114(HES).]
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:31 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.
Number 0696
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 114 targets the problem of inhalant abuse,
which has been neglected in Alaska for many years; it will
provide public safety officials, medical personnel, and the
courts leverage to place individuals who abuse inhalants into
rehabilitation. She added that HB 114 classifies inhalant abuse
as a class B misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine of $300,
which can be waived if the individual agrees to go into
treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that a treatment center in Bethel
is under construction and is expected to open on August 31,
2001. She said that currently there are only two inhalant abuse
treatment centers in the nation: one is in North Dakota, and
the other is in Texas. The lack of treatment centers for
inhalant abuse has been a source of frustration across the
nation, she explained. People who suffer from inhalant abuse
need to go to treatment, but most treatment facilities do not
have accommodations specific to the needs of inhalant abusers.
She stated that most people who suffer abuse need at least 30
days to "detox" because inhalants penetrate all of the major
organs. She mentioned that 24 other states have passed laws
addressing inhalant abuse, which is a very big problem in Alaska
but not much bigger than elsewhere in the nation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER then announced that the original version
of HB 114 classified inhalant abuse as a class B misdemeanor.
She amended her explanation of the legislation to say that CSHB
114(HES) classifies the behavior as a violation. She noted that
this change ensured that inhalant abusers - often very young
children - wouldn't be criminalized or put through the legal
system. With regard to national statistics, she reported that a
survey of eighth-graders indicated that 19.6 percent of all
eighth-graders have tried inhalants; she added that an Alaskan
survey done in 1988 indicated that 25 percent of seventh-
through twelfth-graders have tried inhalants. She noted that
inhalant abuse is an international problem, and she mentioned a
case wherein some Canadian kids were taken away from their
families for "huffing" gas. She explained that inhalant abuse
is sometimes referred to as "sniffing" or "huffing."
Number 0487
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 114, version 22-LS0130\J,
Luckhaupt, 4/16/01, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version J was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether Version J included nitrous
oxide as an inhalant. He mentioned that he has heard that at
"rave concerts," balloons full of nitrous oxide are sold, and
that nitrous oxide causes stupefaction.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER affirmed that Version J would include
nitrous oxide, sometimes referred to as "whippets." She pointed
out that language [in Section 1] reads in part:
(a) Under circumstances not otherwise proscribed under
AS 11.71, a person commits the offense of abuse of
inhalants if the person smells or inhales any
inhalant, other than an alcoholic beverage, with the
intent of causing intoxication, inebriation,
excitement, stupefaction, or dulling of the brain or
nervous system.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted it on record that Version J
includes nitrous oxide.
Number 0346
JIM HENKELMAN, Statewide Outreach Coordinator, Inhalant
Intervention Project, Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC),
said that the YKHC is in support of HB 114, and has federal
funding for construction and initial treatment process for the
inhalant abuse treatment center. He added, however, that [the
YKHC] feels there is a real need to both bring this problem to
the attention of the public and allow public safety and health
officials some recourse for addressing the problem of inhalant
abuse.
MR. HENKELMAN remarked that often [the YKHC] receives comments
from people who say that when they have contacted law
enforcement for help with an inhalant abuse problem, they are
told that nothing can be done because it is not illegal to
inhale substances. He predicted that passage of HB 114 will
allow law enforcement to intervene. He added that [the YKHC's]
biggest concern is for the youth; inhalants are substances that
are abused by very young children - as young as age four. He
mentioned that he has heard of instances when babies have been
given inhalant-type substances to "settle them down."
MR. HENKELMAN described his surprise at learning the extent to
which inhalants are a "gateway" substance to other substances.
A survey done a couple of years ago at the Ernie Turner Center
indicated that 70 percent of the residents in treatment had
started their substance abuse by using inhalants, and 50 percent
of those people said that they would go back to using inhalants
if alcohol wasn't available. After one looks at the
unbelievably serious damage that can be caused even the first
time somebody "inhales," it is obvious that early intervention
has a better chance of preventing long-term substance abuse,
especially among young children.
MR. HENKELMAN, with regard to the residential inhalant abuse
treatment center, explained that the grand opening is scheduled
for August 31, 2001. [The YKHC] expects to take the first group
of young people into the residential treatment program at the
beginning of September. He explained that [the YKHC] has, to
date, been involved in statewide outreach work, including making
contact with communities, assisting them as they "build their
capacity to deal with the inhalant problem within their
community," and training communities in the referral process if
residential treatment is indicated.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "How do you treat something like
this?"
TAPE 01-67, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. HENKELMAN, after noting that it is difficult because
inhalants are very different, went on to explain that it takes
four to six weeks just to get the toxins out of the fatty
tissues. And, unlike with a lot of other substances, almost
always, as soon as somebody starts using inhalants, there are
some deficits that occur: brain damage takes place, and one of
the first things to deteriorate is impulse control. So a lot of
times, "you're" dealing with young people who have begun to lose
their good judgment; thus a lot of behavior problems arise,
which is evident in school. He added that attention-deficit
issues become evident as well. Key to the treatment of inhalant
abuse is a really good assessment, he explained, in order to
determine exactly what the deficits are and how extensive the
damage is.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER added that the Division of Juvenile
Justice has indicated that sometimes there is confusion as to
whether some of their clients have FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome)
or are inhalant abuse sufferers because these two problems have
a lot of the same symptoms. She explained, however, that one of
the differences is that FAS children have almost no early
childhood memories, whereas inhalant abusers have childhood
memories up until the point when they began abusing inhalants.
Inhalants affect every major organ, she reiterated, and there
are repercussions for the offspring of inhalant abusers as well
because reproductive organs are affected too.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that "this isn't something that just
happened lately, either; this has been going on for a long
time." She recalled a foster child that she took care of 38
years ago who was 15 at the time. The child's record indicated
that she had been getting "Ds" and maybe an occasional "C" in
school; the records also indicated that this was all that the
child was capable of attaining, even though she was working very
hard in school. Representative James found out by talking to
this child that when she was a little girl, she and others would
sniff gasoline until they passed out. This was a long time ago,
Representative James remarked, and now "we're" hearing a lot
about it. She surmised that similar behavior had been going on
long before that as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER pointed out that inhaling substances is
extremely addictive.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that another dangerous behavior that
young children engage in is to go around in circles until they
get dizzy and fall down. She said that she remembered an
incident when she was growing up of a neighbor child who had
done this and died as a result of "water on the brain." She
added that her mother put a stop to her doing this because it is
so very dangerous. She warned, however, that even though it is
such a dangerous behavior, kids love to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented that he has heard speculation
that some people substitute inhalants for alcohol when the
latter is not available.
Number 0397
MR. HENKELMAN confirmed this as being accurate. He added that
inhalant abuse can in part be attributed to limited access of
alcohol in some areas of Alaska. Inhalants are readily
available: they can be found in the refrigerator, under the
kitchen counter, and in the gas tank. These substances have a
lot of the same effects [as alcohol], but the physical damage to
the body is so much more severe. He noted that one problem
officials face is that the actual cause of some of the physical
problems experienced by inhalant abusers is not very well
documented. For example, if somebody is sniffing glue, two or
three days later the lungs begin to fill up with fluid and
he/she starts having serious respiratory problems. At the
hospital, the respiratory problems are treated, but no one
investigates to see if the cause is inhalant abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what prompts people to use inhalants.
MR. HENKELMAN explained that many of the reasons are the same
ones that prompt people to try alcohol and drugs; particularly
for young people, he opined, it is a method of escape, it gives
a feeling of power, and it clearly is mind-altering. He said
that according to people he has talked with, using inhalants can
cause visual and auditory hallucinations, it can give a person
the feeling of being in whole different world, and it can impart
a feeling of euphoria. He added that when young children begin
abusing inhalants, they get addicted when they are young, and
they don't have any understanding that they are inflicting
incredible damage on themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked whether inhalant addiction is treated
the same way alcohol or drug addiction is treated.
MR. HENKELMAN explained that some of the same principles can be
used, but it generally takes longer to treat inhalant addiction.
In addition, a more comprehensive assessment has to be done in
order to identify the deficits; then the addicted person will
need help building skills to compensate for those deficits, and
this type of help is not a part of "regular" substance abuse
treatment, he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how the treatment process works for a
four-year-old who is sniffing things.
Number 0603
MR. HENKELMAN, with regard to a child that young, said that
probably the best method of treatment is to limit access. One
type of problem encountered by [the YKHC] is calls from people
asking for someone to come "fix my child because they're
sniffing"; the parents don't realize that they can control the
situation by limiting the child's access to these substances,
and by becoming more aware of what's going on with the child.
He added that with a child that age, it is really the parents'
responsibility to deal with the situation.
MR. HENKELMAN said [the YKHC] would like to see communities
develop the ability to support the parents. Part of the problem
is that all too often, it is the dynamics in the home that
contribute to a child's getting into an inhalant abuse situation
to start with. Such support would include helping the parents
cope with the behavior problems associated with a child who is
suffering from inhalant abuse or other substance abuse; such
support will require a combined effort on the part of the
families, the mental health programs, the Division of Family and
Youth Service (DFYS), community wellness counselors, and
substance abuse counselors.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how such children will be detained
if the need arises, and if people other than law enforcement
would have the authority to remove a child from his/her home.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER offered that on page 2, line 11, there is
language that relates to that.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said there appears to be a contradiction
between language on page 4, line 30, which says "the person
remains incapacitated by alcohol for more than 48 hours after
admission as a patient", and page 5, line 16, which says, "12
hours".
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that these two sections of HB 114 merely
add the word "inhalants" to the existing statute.
MR. HENKELMAN offered that the language on page 5 is referring
to a detention facility [whereas language on page 6 is referring
to a treatment or health facility].
Number 0920
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative and Administrative Liaison,
Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), explained that "we're" talking about two phases
of an involuntary and emergency commitment provision. Section 9
on page 5 relates to an emergency custody period of 12 hours.
Contrastingly, Section 6 on page 4 relates to people who have
presented themselves to treatment programs for treatment and
detoxification, and may, upon examination and approval, stay in
that status for up to 48 hours. Therefore, these are two
different actions and provisions that are not inconsistent, but
are, instead, two parts of a continuum.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that this is a crime that is being
considered a violation, and that many of the provisions in
Version J relate primarily to minors. He asked how the issue of
inhalant abuse by adults is being addressed.
MR. BUTTCANE concurred that Section 1 is creating a new crime
that is a violation, as opposed to a "jailable" offense.
Therefore, any person - adult or juvenile - would be subject to
sanctions if he/she were to abuse these substances. Section 3
ensures that a juvenile offender would be treated the same as an
adult, but, he added, language on page 2 [lines 3-5] mandates
what the court will do once a person has been convicted of this
violation, which shall be to place the offender on probation and
require that he/she successfully complete an inhalant abuse
treatment program.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that inhalant abuse treatment programs are
[not] readily available in Alaska.
MR. BUTTCANE mentioned that [the DHSS] has submitted fiscal
notes "based on what we might project to provide treatment."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, with regard to conviction and sentencing,
asked how four-year-olds would be treated.
MR. BUTTCANE confirmed that they would be treated the same as
adults, but added that there are some practical issues that
would be taken into account. If a four-year-old is found to be
abusing substances, while "we may initially grab hold" of the
child and start intervention, the focus will shift to what's
going on within the family and the community; thus other
intervention mechanisms will be implemented, he explained. He
said that while it is possible that a law enforcement officer
could cite a four-year-old, it's doubtful that such a case would
actually be prosecuted.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that Version J provides that a law
enforcement officer "may" take the child, rather than "shall",
as was provided for in an earlier version.
Number 1206
MR. BUTTCANE noted that Section 4 on page 3 of Version J speaks
to services for minors. What "we're" trying to do, he
explained, is give some authority to local law enforcement
agencies to make interventions, which they could do by taking a
juvenile into protective custody and then returning him/her to
the parent. This, then, is that fine line between being able to
effectively intervene without necessarily effecting a criminal
arrest, which would be inappropriate in the case of a four-year-
old. "This" is looked at, really, as a medical issue more than
as a criminal issue, but, he noted, there are some criminal
processes that can be put into play if necessary. After
intervention by local law enforcement, a process of
assessment/referral/treatment/detoxification can be triggered,
he reported.
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to language in Section 4 that said a
peace officer may take into protective custody a minor who is
not otherwise subject to arrest. He asked what sort of scenario
is affected by this language.
MR. BUTTCANE used the example of a minor who steals a snow
machine and then sniffs the gasoline until he/she becomes
intoxicated by the fumes; when a law enforcement official comes
upon this situation, the minor will be subject to arrest for
stealing the snow machine instead of simply being placed into
protective custody for being under the influence of an inhalant.
Mr. Buttcane informed the committee that [Section 4] has been
reviewed both by the Department of Law and Legislative Legal
Services, and therefore [the DHSS] believes [Section 4] is
consistent with other provisions of law.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER mentioned that HB 114 has a further
referral to the House Finance Committee.
Number 1438
ALVIA "STEVE" DUNNAGAN, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State
Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via
teleconference and said simply that from an enforcement
standpoint, Section 4 is quite easily read and understood. It
pretty much guarantees that if law enforcement personnel have a
serious reason to arrest somebody, they could do so rather than
worrying solely about inhalant use.
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 3:06 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that page 2, line 5, includes language that
requires the defendant to successfully complete an inhalant
abuse treatment program, but he pointed out that such programs
are not available everywhere in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER explained that the facility that is being
built in Bethel will be a statewide facility.
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired, then, whether everyone subject to this
legislation would be flown to Bethel.
MR. HENKELMAN replied, "That's correct.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, after wishing the sponsor good luck on that
point when HB 114 goes to the House Finance Committee, suggested
instead that the court could be granted flexibility with regard
to requiring the defendant to successfully complete an inhalant
abuse treatment program; currently the language in Version J
mandates it, he added.
Number 1502
MR. BUTTCANE opined:
If we did that, the department's fiscal note probably
would be zeroed out; if this were a discretionary
thing, what it would do, essentially, would be limit
treatment to the facility being built in Bethel, which
is funded through federal programs. So if we did it
as a discretionary thing, the department would not
have to submit this....
CHAIR ROKEBERG posited that it has to be discretionary for the
court, and he noted that he is not trying to speak to the
treatment issue other than the practical matter of its
availability. He said the legislature can't force the judge to
mandate a treatment program that doesn't exist unless the person
is flown a thousand miles.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested changing the language [on page 2,
line 3,] to "may", instead of "shall".
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that such a change would give flexibility
regarding probation too. He then asked what AS 12.55.085
addresses.
MR. BUTTCANE explained that AS 12.55.085 is part of the
sentencing/probation statute.
MR. HENKELMAN, in response to a question from Chair Rokeberg,
stated that the facility in Bethel is for youths 10 to 17 years
of age.
Number 1578
DON DAPCEVICH, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (DADA),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), in response to
the question of how and where adults are going to be treated,
explained that the adult treatment is accounted for in the
fiscal note for the DHSS, to take care of some possibility to
provide some services outside of the Bethel area on an
outpatient basis. He added that both youths and adults would be
able to make use of such services.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that the fiscal note mentions
treatment for 30 juveniles and 30 adults.
MR. BUTTCANE remarked that that portion of the fiscal note is
merely asking for recognition that these people are in the
system now, and are currently being treated, and that the DHSS
is not simply creating a new treatment group.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated that he is a co-sponsor of HB 114,
which he feels is an important bill, and he would really
appreciate the committee's favorable consideration in reporting
this legislation out of committee.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, on page
2, line 3, to change "shall" to "may". There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1756
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 114, version 22-
LS0130\J, Luckhaupt, 4/16/01, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 114(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1771
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|